19-03-2026
This case concerned a father’s application for his young daughter to live with him and for permission to remove her permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales to Dubai.
The father lived abroad for work‑related reasons but remained actively involved in his daughter’s life. His application was opposed and the proceedings were contested, extending over a period of more than two years and involving multiple hearings at different levels of the Family Court.
The proceedings began in December 2022. Over the following months, six interim hearings took place, during which a range of issues were considered, including child protection concerns, the involvement of external agencies, and the appropriate arrangements for the child’s care and welfare.
During this period, numerous allegations were made by the child’s mother. These allegations were directed not only at the father, but also at members of his family, friends, and professionals involved in the case. The court was required to consider these matters carefully, alongside the wider context of the parties’ conduct and communications.
The case was characterised by a high volume of correspondence and repeated applications, including the involvement of the court, the child’s school, and other agencies. Some communications contained extreme and distressing claims, which added to the complexity and intensity of the proceedings.
The court considered a wide range of issues throughout the case, including the child’s welfare and safeguarding, the role of the police and support agencies, mental health concerns raised during the proceedings, the use and misuse of social media, and the practical and emotional impact of prolonged litigation on the child.
Despite the challenges presented, the focus of the proceedings remained on the child’s best interests and long‑term stability.
Following a brief period during which the proceedings were less active, further hearings took place in the Family Division of the High Court during 2024 and early 2025.
At the conclusion of the case, the court made orders providing for the child to live with her father on a full‑time basis, permission for the child to be permanently removed from the jurisdiction to live with her father in Dubai, and restrictions on the mother’s contact with the child, subject to strict conditions designed to ensure the child’s safety and stability.
The court found that the allegations made against the father were not substantiated. Concerns were instead raised by the court in relation to the mother’s conduct during the proceedings. This ultimately led to criminal proceedings and the making of a Restraining Order to protect both the father and the child.
This case was of particular significance because the destination country, Dubai, is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. As a result, the court was required to give careful consideration to the practical consequences of granting permission to remove the child permanently from the jurisdiction, including the absence of automatic reciprocal enforcement mechanisms in the event of future disputes. The decision reflects the court’s assessment that, notwithstanding those factors, the proposed relocation was in the child’s best interests, and that appropriate safeguards could be put in place to protect the child’s welfare. The case demonstrates the court’s willingness, in appropriate circumstances, to permit relocation to a non‑Hague Convention country following detailed scrutiny of the evidence and risk profile.
The father was represented throughout the proceedings by Ward Gethin Archer. Sarah Fairbrother, Director and Head of the Family Department at the firm, commented that the case required sustained focus over a prolonged period and careful preparation at every stage. The outcome reflected the importance of addressing the court’s concerns methodically and keeping the child’s welfare at the centre of the case.
The firm also acknowledged the contribution of Counsel, Deborah Eaton KC of 1 King’s Bench Walk, and the wider legal team involved in the matter.
This case illustrates the importance of obtaining early and effective legal advice in complex and contested children proceedings. It also highlights the court’s willingness, where appropriate, to grant permission for a child to be removed from the jurisdiction where this is found to be in the child’s best interests.
All names and personal details have been changed. The client gave full consent for this case to be shared.